Neoplatonism of Pergamon

Historical Context and Origins

The Neoplatonism of Pergamon designates a regional and pedagogical current within late antique Neoplatonism, centered on the city of Pergamon in Asia Minor during the early 4th century CE. It emerged in the aftermath of the influential Syrian school of Iamblichus, whose synthesis of Platonic metaphysics with ritual theurgy shaped much of later pagan philosophy.

After Iamblichus’ death, his pupils dispersed. One of them, Aedesius of Cappadocia, established a new philosophical circle in Pergamon. Unlike the more institutionalized schools in Athens or later Alexandria, the Pergamene group functioned as a looser gathering of students and teachers united by a shared commitment to Platonism, traditional cult, and theurgy.

This movement developed at a time when Christianity was gaining political and cultural dominance in the Roman Empire. The Pergamene Neoplatonists operated in a climate of religious competition and legal uncertainty, in which philosophical Platonism increasingly took on the role of an intellectual defense and reinterpretation of traditional Greco-Roman religion.

Doctrinal Features and Theurgy

Philosophically, the Pergamene current remained within the broad Neoplatonic framework inherited from Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus. It affirmed a hierarchical ontology in which all reality emanates from a supreme, ineffable first principle (the One or the Good), mediated by Intellect (Nous) and Soul (Psyche). Below these levels lie the ensouled cosmos and the material world.

What gave the Neoplatonism of Pergamon its particular character was the strong emphasis on theurgy—ritual actions intended to invoke or participate in the divine. Following Iamblichus, Aedesius and his associates argued that philosophical reasoning alone could not bring the embodied human soul to full union with the divine. Because the soul is entangled with matter, they held that it requires ritual “signs” (symbola), sacred names, and divinely given rites to be elevated.

Within this framework:

• Traditional cults and oracles were reinterpreted as symbolic expressions of deep metaphysical truths.
• Myths about the gods were treated not as mere stories but as allegories encoding the structure of the intelligible realm.
• Ritual purity, sacrifice, and divination were seen as complementing rational contemplation, not replacing it.

At the same time, the school was not doctrinally monolithic. Eusebius of Myndus, for example, is reported to have criticized more spectacular forms of theurgy and wonder-working as deceptive or philosophically dubious, preferring a more sober intellectual approach. This internal diversity illustrates ongoing debates among Neoplatonists about the proper balance between rational discourse and ritual practice.

Ethically, the Pergamene Neoplatonists promoted purification of the soul through:

• ascetic discipline and moderation in bodily pleasures,
• cultivation of philosophical virtues (wisdom, justice, temperance, courage),
• reverent participation in traditional religious rites.

The aim was not withdrawal from the world but a life conformed to divine order, in which the philosopher-priest becomes a mediator between the gods and the civic community.

Key Figures and Legacy

The central figure of the Pergamene circle was Aedesius, often described in later sources as a pious and moderate interpreter of Iamblichean doctrine. Around him gathered several students who would play important roles in late antique intellectual and religious life:

• Maximus of Ephesus became known as a prominent theurgist and wonder-worker. He exerted considerable influence on the future emperor Julian, introducing him to both Neoplatonic metaphysics and ritual practices. Later Christian sources portray Maximus ambivalently, emphasizing his alleged magical powers and his role in Julian’s religious policies.

• Chrysanthius of Sardis appears as another significant student, reputed for his restraint and philosophical seriousness. While sympathetic to theurgy, he was reportedly more cautious in its public display and political implications.

• Eusebius of Myndus offered a more critical voice within the circle, preferring a rational and less ritual-centered approach to Neoplatonism, and warning Julian against uncritical enthusiasm for wonder-working.

• Julian, before becoming emperor, studied under Aedesius’ pupils and is sometimes classed among the alumni of the Pergamene school. In his later writings and policies as emperor (361–363 CE), he attempted a revival of Hellenic religion informed by Neoplatonic theology, priestly ideals, and cult reform—many elements of which bear the imprint of his education in Pergamon.

The legacy of the Neoplatonism of Pergamon is both direct and indirect:

• Directly, it shaped Julian’s short-lived program of pagan restoration and his philosophical works, which cite or presuppose Neoplatonic doctrines learned from the Pergamene circle.
• Indirectly, it contributed to the broader religious Platonism of late antiquity, reinforcing the idea that philosophy, cult, and theurgy form an integrated path to the divine.

Later Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonists inherited many Iamblichean and Pergamene themes, especially the dense hierarchy of divine beings and the high valuation of ritual. At the same time, Christian authors such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Socrates Scholasticus used the figures of Maximus and Julian to exemplify, from their perspective, the perceived dangers of pagan theurgy and “magic,” thus preserving valuable, if polemical, testimony about the movement.

Modern scholars debate the extent to which one can speak of a distinct “school” of Pergamon, as opposed to a network of teachers influenced by Iamblichus. Nonetheless, the term Neoplatonism of Pergamon remains useful for designating this influential constellation of thinkers whose blend of metaphysics, ritual, and political-religious ambition left a marked imprint on the final centuries of pagan philosophy in the Roman Empire.